[aDyslecticCrow]

> CAN more severe than Intel

I suspect the usage of the CAN driver in Linux is pretty low. The largest user of the Linux can driver is likely testing and diagnostics tooling for developing cars rather than the car themselves. Even when the car has a Linux computer, they often use multi CPU SOC's that run the real-time CAN logic separate from Linux, and only convey application logic into Linux.

I could also speculate that the overlap between Linux kernel developers and automotive and industrial embedded systems is pretty low. So the high bug severity in the CAN driver could be developers contributing patches from a very different programming background?

[myself248]

> I could also speculate that the overlap between Linux kernel developers and automotive and industrial embedded systems is pretty low.

Agreed.

> So the high bug severity in the CAN driver could be developers contributing patches from a very different programming background?

Background and situation. Their mindset is "I need this to work, right now", not "I need this to work, and not break anything else, forever".

[earthscienceman]

There are so many more embedded CAN systems beyond cars. Industrial battery management uses Linux and canbus, for example.

[aDyslecticCrow]

Satellites, industrial machines, automatic windows blinds, battery management systems.

I still suspect those industrial battery management systems have a separate embedded systems that is actually running the communication.

The risk of a linux system freezing and rebooting is faar greater than a 500 row c state machine that is passing application state back and forth.

I Really dont think its common for linux to directly manage can traffic outside of logging and diagnostics. (atleast from those i've seen)